IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.02.2025 Pronounced on: 13.02.2025 SUNIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, Ms. Anu Pal, Advocate and Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate for the respondent-HSIIDC.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground, that the earlier issued notification(s) Annexure P-1, and, Annexure P-2, as became respectively issued on 22.06.2006, and, 20.06.2007, hence in terms of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short call as the ‘Act of 1894’), thus inviting the mandate of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there occurs lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'.

2. The instant writ petition became earlier allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 04.12.2017, thereby holding that the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner stands lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

“For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, one condition as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been complied with, the acquisition of land in question has lapsed. However, the State shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited with the Court in the case of present petitioner.

The State shall also be at liberty to either initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land or negotiate with the landowners for purchasing/ retaining the land in accordance with law, in case the land in question is required for completion of any project or otherwise. The petitioner shall maintain status quo regarding the land in question for a period of six months to enable the State to take decision.

The writ petition is allowed.”

3. Against the said judgment passed by this Court on 04.12.2017, the respondent-HSIIDC approached the Apex Court through its filing SLP(C) No.008411-2019. Vide order dated

29.02.2024, the apposite SLP was allowed, and, the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2017, as passed by this Court was quashed and set aside, and further remanded the instant lis to this Court for deciding it on the issues other than the one covering the field in 'Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal and others', to which SLP (Civil) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016. Relevant paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

“In such view of the matter, the appeals stand allowed.

Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court to be decided on the issues other than the one covering the field in Indore Development Authority (supra).”

4. The present petitioner would be entitled to the espoused writ relief(s), as relates to this Court, thus declaring rather lapsed the extantly drawn acquisition proceedings, but only when the provisions embodied in Section 24(2) of the 'Act of 2013', become proved to become breached by the respondents. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the asked for relief qua the making of a lapsing declaration rather cannot be accorded by this Court.

5. Primarily for the reason, that the present petitioner would be entitled to coax this Court to declare the launching of the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894, to thus become